1. Field of Invention
The present disclosure generally relates to deodorant dispensing devices and related methods.
2. Background
The human underarm is one of the most consistently warm areas on the surface of the human body and therefore becomes moist due to the heat responsive activity of human sweat glands in an attempt to cool the area. Such moisture, known as perspiration, is predominantly odorless until it is fermented by bacteria. Fermented perspiration in the human underarm is common because bacteria thrive therein the frequently warm and moist environments. During fermentation, bacteria release waste products from its feeding off the perspiration, which is the principle cause of body odor. To avoid smelling bad as a result of underarm fermentation, humans have created deodorants and anti-perspirants (herein referred collectively as “deodorants”) to prevent, mask, or eliminate such odor.
The origins of deodorant are thought to trace back to the medieval Islamic period of the 9th century. Mum was an early (circa 1888) commercial cream deodorant that was initially packaged in a jar and applied by fingertips. Later, Mum was rebranded as Ban and applied using a roll-on applicator packaging that operated in a similar manner to a ball-point pen. Spray and aerosol dispensers have also been known for the packaging and application of deodorants. Now, “stick” deodorants are the most popular form of deodorant packaging and applicators used today.
Stick deodorants come in many shapes, sizes, and brands. Deodorant sticks range in strength from everyday use to sports-intensive, extra strength. Many times, consumers buy multiple sticks of deodorant to use for different purposes. For example, consumers often buy two sticks of deodorant, one for daily use and another for extra strength or “work out” use. Moreover, each brand of stick deodorant is available in numerous scents to appeal to the diverse preferences of different consumers. Consumers often buy multiple sticks of deodorant, each with a unique scent, in order to account for the consumer's daily preference, mood, or purpose. For instance, consumers often buy two or more sticks of deodorant, one tropical-themed scent for a summer themed event, one fruit-flavored scent for a user that enjoys fruit, and etcetera.
The simultaneous possession and use of multiple deodorant sticks for various application purposes and consumer preferences leads to inconvenience, waste, clutter, and expense. Multiple deodorant sticks take up valuable space in what may be very limited bathroom cabinet space. With every additional deodorant stick comes an additional plastic deodorant stick dispenser which leads to excess waste, unnecessary clutter, and increased expense. Furthermore, the excess waste has a negative impact on the environment. Finding the particular deodorant stick that the user is looking for can also become a time consuming task, leading to inconvenience.
There have been some notable attempts to address the problems of excess waste, unnecessary clutter, inconvenience, and expense associated with deodorant sticks. However, they have not taken the approach of the embodiments of the present application or are inadequate for a variety of reasons. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,196,421 to Williams teaches a double-ended dispenser, but this device focuses on aerosol sprays, which are no longer the basis for the most popular types of deodorants used today. Moreover, the double-ended aerosol spray design is awkward to use and creates liquid-flow problems since one side is inevitably stored upside down. U.S. Pat. No. 2,264,482 to Ridner teaches a double-ended cosmetic device, but does not contemplate dispensing multiple types of cosmetic substances from either end. Rather, the Ridner device dispenses a cosmetic substance on one end and employs a tool on the other. U.S. Pat. No. 6,276,853 to Breidenbach teaches a double-ended cosmetic device, but only contemplates dispensing liquids, similar to Williams above. This creates a need for additional, complicated parts to keep the liquid from leaking out of the device and therefore leads to increased cost.
While each of these attempts is noteworthy, current technologies fail to adequately address the common problems associated with the use of multiple deodorant sticks including excess waste, unnecessary clutter, inconvenience and expense. Many of the previous technologies are unlikely to be embraced by users by reason of awkwardness of use, cumbersome design, overly complicated mechanisms, or expensive retail prices as a result of the overly complicated mechanisms. Accordingly, there remains a need for means to dispense two types of deodorant sticks out of a single, simple, and cost-effective dispensing device.